Information & Ethics Committee on March 18th, 2010

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

My question does not seem to be clear. I do not know whether there is something wrong with simultaneous interpretation, but I will try a third time. I will rephrase it again. The $100,000 you are requesting in the supplementary estimates, and which you have taken from your $20 million budget for anti-spam activities has already been spent. You took it from other areas. So you have a $20 million budget, and you have already used this $100,000. You have cut services somewhere. I would like to know what it is you have eliminated.

[Tom Pulcine]

I am not sure it is possible to know exactly where this money is coming from...

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

That is what I am asking you. Where did you take this money?

[Tom Pulcine]

It is in our budget. You would like to know precisely from which area or project we have taken--

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

We would like to know. You are requesting supplementary estimates, but you have already spent this money. It does not look like it is so important to get your request.

[Tom Pulcine]

As it relates to this, it's a bit of a catch-22. Our input into the supplementary estimates is presented well in advance of the evolution of the legislation. We've been working in putting out these numbers for quite some time. As Commissioner Denham identified, the initial activities that we would undertake in year one, as they relate to this legislation, were around informing Canadians and others with respect to the impact of this new legislation. When we were asked to identify what would be our costs, recognizing that we're one of three government organizations or entities that are working on this legislation, our costs were identified to be $100,000.

When we are faced with a situation where the legislation is expected to go through, it is a risk we have to take with respect to whether we undertake the activities and the preparation necessary so that when the legislation does pass--

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

You are still not answering my question, Mr. Pulcine. Which envelope does this $100,000 come from?

[Tom Pulcine]

Our envelope is basically one envelope for the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. The $20 million is divided between the salary and the non-salary...perhaps I'm not quite understanding the whole aspect--

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Listen, I will not let you go before I get the answer I am looking for.

[Tom Pulcine]

That is correct.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

There is an envelope--

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

It's an important question. We're dealing with the year 2009-10, which has a couple of weeks to go. You indicated ostensibly that this amount of money has been dedicated towards supporting the legislation, which was on the table during this past year but has not come forward. The member, and I think all the members, would just like an indication that should this be approved by the committee, there's not another $100,000 that is going to be actually spent on the legislation in the current fiscal year, which has not been retabled.

Is that the case?

[Tom Pulcine]

The simple answer to your question is yes.

We're at a point in the fiscal year where it's very difficult. It's March 18. The fiscal year ends on March 31, and it's very difficult to spend any money at this time of year that hasn't already been initiated in terms of an activity. The simple answer to your question is no, there will not be any additional resources initiated at this point for this legislation.

It's really important as well to recognize that if the committee recommends the approval of the supplementary estimates, our understanding is if the legislation does not pass, that $100,000 will be frozen. Our office will not get any financial benefit of that $100,000. So I'm not sure if there's a--

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

From what I understand, you do not need this $100,000.

[Tom Pulcine]

-- to be able to carry on with your work or activities? No, I think you are right.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

You just said you do not need this additional money. You are telling me I am right. So, you do not need this $100,000.

[Tom Pulcine]

You are right.

[Carole Freeman, Bloc, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

This committee is here to try to see whether this $100,000 in supplementary estimates is required. You are telling me you do not need it. Thank you. No more questions,

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

I think the point is, and I stand to be corrected, that in approving the supplementary estimates (C) appropriation for the $100,000, it would then make the total appropriations for the current fiscal year reflective of the work that was done during that year.

[Elizabeth Denham]

That is correct.

I think it would have been irresponsible of us, given the complexity of this legislation, not to turn our minds and start preparing the public education materials and training our staff, because it wouldn't be something that we could just do instantly. As I said, it was an important initiative that we ready ourselves to speak to Canadians and to speak to businesses about this important legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Of course, the work already done will be relevant for the legislation that we anticipate will be introduced sometime during this current session.

[Elizabeth Denham]

That's right. It's also relevant to other technology investigations that are under way at this time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Paul Szabo]

Good. I'm sure we'll have some more questions.

We'll go now to Mr. Atamanenko, please.

Welcome.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Good morning. Thank you for being here with us.

Let me tell you first that my party and I are supporting your request for an additional $100,000.

Having said that, I've been asked by my colleague, who normally sits here, to ask a couple of other questions and to get your comments.

One of them deals with the Olympic security cameras in Vancouver. We understand that the cameras are going to be removed from the Vancouver streets. I guess the concern of my colleague from Burnaby—Douglas is that in fact all cameras be removed. We were wondering if you have any comments on that, from the point of view of privacy.

The other question is in regard to the UN report that states that “airport body scans breach rights”:

Martin Scheinin, the UN special rapporteur on the protection of human rights, said while countering extremism scanners were both an ineffective means of prevention and an excessive intrusion into individual privacy.

Scheinin, who was “appointed to monitor the impact of anti-terror measures on individual freedoms five years ago, told the UN Human Rights Council better detection technology could be better for human rights.” So he's saying that “full body scanners are a disproportionate intrusion into privacy when measures are not taken to minimize the negative impact on privacy.”

My colleague would just like to see if you have any comments on that, given the fact that we've approved body scanners in Canada.

[Elizabeth Denham]

I'm the assistant privacy commissioner responsible for the private sector side of the office, so I can just answer very briefly that my colleague Chantal Bernier or the commissioner will follow up with a more complete answer. It is also my understanding that the cameras will be removed from the streets of Vancouver. Our office is continuing to follow that file. We are troubled by ongoing video surveillance, of course, so I understand your comment.

When it comes to airport body scanners, just to clarify, the commissioner did not approve the use of body scanners in our airports. We make recommendations to government departments on privacy interests and privacy rights and on how to balance the security needs with privacy and dignity interests.

When we looked at this file through a privacy impact assessment, our office felt that there was a fair balance between both of those interests. But we continue to monitor what CATSA and the government are doing in their implementation of body scanners.

I can follow up with more detail.